CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 23, 1999

• 0908

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call this meeting of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the standing committee is conducting a series of round tables on government's evolving role in support of Canadian culture in a context of a rapidly changing national and international environment.

[Translation]

I would like to welcome and offer our sincere thanks to our guests. It's an honour for us to be among you today.

[English]

Our usual practice is to listen to presentations of our witnesses, but this time we decided to have a round table with members and invited speakers to sit together in order to exchange and get engaged in a more fruitful exchange.

As you know, our committee is undertaking a study of the challenges facing culture on the eve of the next century: the globalization of trade, the economy, emerging technologies, Internet matters and their impact on our culture and cultural instruments, and all sorts of demographic changes that will transform present-day Canada into a completely different country in the 21st century.

Our predecessor committee began this study before the last election, and fortunately this committee decided we should continue that work.

• 0910

We wish to examine, first of all, the types of support that already are in place by the federal government, and how this support—such as the rules governing ownership and cultural content, federal grants to federal institutions, or tax incentives—will enable us to face the challenges in the next millennium. These are the issues we're dealing with.

[Translation]

As I said, the three main challenges facing us as far as this study goes are, first of all, the advent of new technologies, the evolution of the global economy and global trade, and Canada's changing demographics.

First, as committee members, we wanted to inform ourselves thoroughly. One year ago, we held a parliamentary forum on cultural policy, international trade and technology in the new millennium. At this forum, we organized round tables on various sectors such as the arts, heritage, the publishing industry, film and video, and finally, broadcasting and sound recording. The forum was very successful in identifying key themes which, I hope, we will have a chance to discuss with you today.

[English]

We have heard from representatives of the various federal cultural institutions and from officials of various departments. We've had briefings from experts on the evolution of technology, international trade, and demographics. Now in this last phase, through these round tables, we want to cover certain sectors specifically and get input from you as the people who practise culture on the front lines to find out how you manage to survive in the cultural milieu and how you will face the challenges of the next century. Obviously in a format such as this, and in a short time, it's impossible for us to cover a lot of ground, but we want to cover as much ground as possible.

At the back of your programs are the five questions we would like to have addressed today. Some of you may want to tackle only one, or some of them. But we are interested in your views, and hopefully by the end of this week we will have some answers to questions such as what role the federal government should perform in the future to support our cultural industries. For example, should the federal government be a legislator, regulator, owner-operator of national institutions, funding partner, patron of the arts, business developer, promoter, or combination of all of the above?

[Translation]

Naturally, both official languages are welcome here, so you can choose the one you prefer. We hope we won't get speeches, only brief comments, so that there's an exchange of opinions all around the table.

[English]

To start off our work I'd like to go around the table counter-clockwise and have you each introduce yourself to us. We don't need a full biography. You could just let us know what you do and how you are involved in the arts and cultural industries. After that we will welcome comments from each of you through me, the chair, so I can recognize you. Because of the translation, I would ask that you speak one at a time. We have mikes at the back and we encourage our audience to participate as well. Just put up your hands so you can be recognized. We would ask that you keep your comments or statements to two to three minutes maximum. Even if we come back to you four or five times, we would truly like to engage in a round-table discussion and not just statements.

Without any further ado, we'll start with Monsieur Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Good morning. I'm Mauril Bélanger, the Member of Parliament for the riding of Ottawa—Vanier in the Nation's Capital. I'm also parliamentary secretary to Ms. Copps and I've been involved in this study from the very beginning.

I hope that everyone here will feel free to use their preferred official language.

[English]

I thank you all for showing up and helping us in this task, which is rather amorphous at times, but I think very important to our country. Thank you.

Mr. David Carr (Director, University of Manitoba Press; Association of Manitoba Book Publishers): I'm representing the Association of Manitoba Book Publishers. I'm also from the University of Manitoba Press, which is where I work.

There are 12 book publishers here in Manitoba, who publish about 80 books a year in both English and French. We're a $4 million cultural industry. We receive support from both the federal and provincial governments, and we help create employment for about 75 Manitobans full time.

• 0915

Ms. Pat Sanders (Writing and Publishing Officer and Communications Officer, Manitoba Arts Council): I'm Pat Sanders. I'm the writing and publishing officer and the communications officer at the Manitoba Arts Council. I have a history of writing and editing in the book publishing community here.

Ms. Cherry Karpyschin (General Manager, Prairie Theatre Exchange): I'm Cherry Karpyschin, general manager for Prairie Theatre Exchange. We're a professional theatre company here in Winnipeg producing adult and children's work. We do mainstage shows and we tour throughout the province, sometimes nationally. We also have a theatre school with just under 500 students in it.

Mr. Allen MacInnis (Assistant Director, Prairie Theatre Exchange): I'm Allen MacInnis, assistant director of Prairie Theatre Exchange here in Winnipeg. I've been in this vibrant arts community for the last five years, but I also have twenty years' experience freelancing as a director across the country.

Ms. Marilyn Stothers (Vice-President, North America Region, World Crafts Council): I'm Marilyn Stothers. I'm a vice-president for North America for the World Crafts Council. In that capacity I represent the Canadian Crafts Council, which is now called the Canadian Craft Federation. Also in that capacity I'm a member of the Manitoba Crafts Council board. I'm a volunteer in all of this. I'm also an art quilt maker, and that is my profession.

Mr. Bruce Leslie (Director of Communications, CANWEST Global): Good morning. My name is Bruce Leslie. I'm the director of communications for CANWEST Global Communications Corporation, headquartered in Winnipeg. Our primary role here is as the owner of the Global television network across Canada. We also own and operate television networks in Ireland, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, and also speciality channels in Canada, Prime Television.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good morning everyone. My name is Benoît Sauvageau and I'm a member of the Bloc Québécois. I represent the suburban Montreal riding of Repentigny. It's a great pleasure for me to be here among you, and that goes too for the members of the public seated at the back of the room. Like Mauril, I too hope you feel free to ask questions. This is a golden opportunity, since we don't often have a chance to get together. So, it's now or never.

As my party's international trade critic, I am concerned in particular about how culture relates to international agreements. I'm curious as to what works or doesn't work today and as to which areas can be improved upon. I look forward to our exchange. Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Trudy Schroeder (Arts Consultant, Arts & Heritage Solutions): Good morning. I'm Trudy Schroeder. I'm an arts consultant based here in Winnipeg at this point. I've been very active in developing cultural policies for municipalities and thinking about cultural policies on a federal and provincial level as well. Also, I've worked on quite a variety of projects in terms of local development of the arts.

Mr. Bob Sochasky (Director, Finance and Administration, Canada's Royal Winnipeg Ballet): My name is Bob Sochasky. I'm the director of finance for the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, Canada's oldest ballet company. We over many years have partnered with the federal government in regard to presenting ourselves overseas in different countries. I'm here to aid and assist in developing hopefully a cultural policy we can all be very proud of and be very supportive of and something that could last longer than budgets.

Mr. Stephen Schipper (Artistic Director, Manitoba Theatre Centre): Good morning. I'm Stephen Schipper, the artistic director of the Manitoba Theatre Centre, Canada's oldest English-speaking regional theatre. We presently enjoy the support of the largest performing arts audience in Manitoba, with over 200,000 attendances per year. We're open 300 days of the year. We present a six-play mainstage subscription series, a four-play warehouse subscription series, a provincial tour, a theatre for young artists program, and the Winnipeg Fringe Festival.

Mr. Zaz Bajon (General Manager, Manitoba Theatre Centre): My name is Zaz Bajon, and I'm the general manager of the Manitoba Theatre Centre.

Mr. Bruce Duggan (Chair, Manitoba Cultural Coalition): My name is Bruce Duggan. I'm the chair of the Manitoba Cultural Coalition. I have a real job too: I'm the aministrative director of Plug-in Gallery. The coalition is made up of about 105 organizations in Manitoba. It includes big ones, small ones, urban ones, rural ones, every sector, every ethnic make-up in this cultural life here, and pretty well every town in the province. I think I would like to say, on behalf of the province, welcome to the cultural heart of Canada.

Ms. Shelley Sweeney (President, National Association of Canadian Archivists): I'm Shelley Sweeney. I'm the president of the National Association of Canadian Archivists. We have 700 members across Canada. In English-speaking Canada we also represent about 3,000 archivists and those interested in archives. We're an association that represents not only the interests of professional archivists, but people who are interested in archives: the genealogists, local historians, historians, different types of journalists, researchers, and so on. I'm a professional archivist and I'm at the University of Manitoba.

• 0920

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I'm Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the NDP member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre. I think I'll second Bruce Duggan's notation and welcome everyone to the cultural heartland of Canada.

I'm filling in for Wendy Lill, who is our NDP culture critic. I'm very pleased to be here and to see so many familiar faces from 12 or 13 years ago, when I was the provincial minister of culture. My questions today are going to revolve around how much has actually changed or how much progress we have made since about 12 years ago, when we were in the middle of fighting the Canada-U.S. free trade deal and looking at how to develop a cultural policy for Canada. My other question is has there been any progress made with respect to the 1993 Canadian Conference of the Arts blueprint for cultural policy?

I'm very interested in participating in the discussion and taking your feedback back to Wendy Lill and our caucus.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome.

Ms. Alexa Saborowski (Film Program Administrator, Manitoba Film & Sound): I'm Alexa Saborowski. I'm film program administrator for Manitoba Film & Sound. I'm filling in for Carole Vivier, our CEO, who's travelling.

We are a provincial film-funding agency. We also support sound recording and we do development and production financing as well as act as a film commission for the province.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you. Welcome. Now that we know who we are....

Yes, Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: To avoid the problem we encountered yesterday, I'd like to invite a representative of the Franco- Manitoban community to join us at the table. I see that they don't have a representative here. I don't know if there is anyone here in the room.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): If you understand that they were invited....

Who would like to start? Ms. Sweeney.

Ms. Shelley Sweeney: What we're very concerned with, and I wanted to impart this to the committee, is the loss of electronic records. We're moving into a lot of government and cultural organizations that are creating records in a very fragile format, and right now, with such things as the loss of information through obsolete technologies—the computers are changing, the formats are changing, the programs are changing—we're very concerned that our members are not only expected to work with these fleeting technologies and transitory records, but are supposed to be leading in this area. We're very concerned that Canada's national heritage is at a very critical point now, where there might be significant loss of our heritage because we cannot capture those records. So that's a very critical point for us.

In terms of demographics, a lot of people are retiring and genealogy is picking up very significantly as a leisure-time activity. We want to make sure we support that activity, because I think it's something that Canadians as a whole can enjoy.

My last point would be that there is a real effect of globalization on Canada. We see it in Bill C-54 with the attempt to regulate the transmission of electronic information data about individuals across borders and to other countries. This is having a significant effect on not just government records, but individuals' records. We're very concerned about protecting the privacy of individuals and allowing access so that there is a possibility for the general Canadian public to access these.

Thanks.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Ms. Sweeney.

Bill C-54 is dealing with electronic commerce and privacy. If you're concerned about that, I know we'll be going to the committee on industry, so you may want to make submissions to them.

Ms. Shelley Sweeney: We just submitted a brief a couple of days ago.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Great, thank you.

Mr. Bruce Duggan: I'd like to make a big-picture point and then later I'll try to make some more specific ones.

• 0925

For my fundamental point, I'd like to echo what Bob was saying. We've had some preliminary meetings as a community, and one of the things that's come through really clearly is that arts organizations in Manitoba believe the federal government should have a federal cultural policy. I noticed with some concern that in your opening remarks this actually wasn't part of the agenda of the discussion. I'm just going to assume that was an oversight from trying to cram everything into two hours.

The point I would like to make is the federal government has all sorts of federal programs, and those programs have policies, but it has yet to articulate a kind of overarching federal cultural policy, a set of goals, a rationale for doing that, and a mechanism for assessing success or failure within portions of that.

Federal cultural policy should include more than just a policy for the Department of Canadian Heritage, because federal cultural policy is not enacted only through a single department. Cultural policy needs to be based on some fundamental reasons, not simply an amalgamation of what we're doing now, but why, as a country, our federal government should be doing this. We need to articulate that and assess that.

There's a book by Bernard Ostry that was written in the 1970s or 1980s that may be the first book that called for a federal cultural policy in Canada. It's still a really good document, and worth reading again. I'm on the board of the CCA, and in 1993 they called for a cultural policy and again this year. I think they produced a fairly detailed blueprint.

It seems to me that as a committee you folks are actually engaged in a really interesting discussion on whether or not the federal government should have one of these things, and if we should, what would be the nature of it.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Would you like to follow up on that, Mr. Leslie?

Mr. Bruce Leslie: I'd like to apologize in advance, as I'm going to have to leave before the discussion is over to catch an airplane. I'm probably going in the same direction you are.

You started the discussion by talking about the role of the federal government. This may come as a shock to some people who know CANWEST Global, but the fact is we are not opposed to the federal government's involvement in cultural policy, certainly not as a legislator or a regulator. We see there is definitely a role for the federal government.

You did mention, though, that you were examining whether there's a role as an auditor. We would certainly have some ideas opposing that, and would probably get into that discussion later on.

I wanted to talk briefly about some of the specific questions you're asking in your brief. Primarily, one that's going to have a big impact on us in the very near future is the change in technology. As all of us know, the CRTC has been looking at new media, whether they're going to become a regulator or how they're going to regulate it, or whether they even can regulate it.

We see this is going to be a very big change to our industry, whether it's webcasting or people broadcasting what's now available on our public airwaves through the Internet, or through other means. It's going to have a big impact on our industry, on our advertisers, and we need to think about how this is going to affect us, and in a way that we don't stifle the Canadian content that is now on the Internet, or could go on the Internet. As everybody knows, this is the most mobile industry that has come along in a long time, and we have to be very careful.

We want to encourage this committee, the CRTC, and others to keep those things in mind when they're deciding, if there is even a role for the regulator in Internet or new media, as we're calling it.

With reference to the first question in your brief, I wanted to make a couple of quick points. On the federal cultural support measures currently in place, again, contrary to some media reports about our company, we are not opposed to Canadian content regulations. In fact, we think they have been very valuable and have helped to get a production community off the ground in Canada. What we would like to see is some fine-tuning around the edges so we can use promotional tools that are at our disposal to help promote Canadian production across the country and help build audiences through making quality shows, promoting them properly, and ensuring their long-term survival. That's one of the things we have requested of the CRTC, and we will continue to do so.

We'd also like to see public support, public funding, if you will, increased for Canadian production. Creating hit television shows is one of the most difficult and expensive things you can possibly go into if you're an investor. We see it primarily as a research and development project, and we'd like to see that treated the same as it is in other industries.

• 0930

The ratio for producing a pilot and eventually it becoming a hit show is probably ten to one, at best. We would like to see a system or a funding mechanism set up, whether through tax incentives or whatever, to help those independent productions get to a pilot stage, get to where they can take it to a broadcaster like Global, CTV, or the CBC and take it forward into production. If we could see that system where pilots are seen as R and D, where independent producers here in Manitoba or anywhere across the country could access funds from the investment community, with help from cultural institutions or from legislatures, we think that would be a great benefit to the community and help us eventually along the way to tell Canadians their stories.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Mr. Zaz Bajon: I'd like to say a couple of things.

I want to thank the federal government for the $25 million, over five years $125 million, to the Canada Council. I think it's a good idea, and it should continue. I'd like to state for the record that the Manitoba Theatre Centre is not the beneficiary of any of that $25 million, but we endorse that and we hope the federal government will continue it.

We also endorse and support Paul Martin's capital gains credits for people donating to non-profit organizations, not only the arts, but all sorts of other non-profit organizations. We would like to make sure the government and the private sector get involved, so financial planners are very aware of this. When they're talking and meeting with individuals who are looking at their estates, insurance, and other things, they could possibly capitalize on this benefit to them and their community. I think it's very important that not only we have this, and hopefully it continues beyond the test period, but that somehow we get this out into the community.

The one thing we would like a cultural initiative to do is to reinitiate the capital grants program. We find that a lot of the facilities that existed across the country, especially in Winnipeg, unless you are owned by the province, the city, or the federal government, your building doesn't really get updated, or your equipment doesn't get replaced. The problem we have is that we're spending all our money on programming, and it's very difficult to maintain the program level and try to upgrade your equipment.

The federal government used to have a cultural initiative program in which capital money was provided, and it was a great program, because it forced the province and the municipality to get involved. It was the leader. What's happening with the federal government now is it's no longer the leader; it's the follower, or it doesn't exist at all in a lot of areas, especially when it comes to capital. You know, the money doesn't seem to be there. That's an area we would like this committee to address, so our facilities and the equipment we have can continue being updated on an ongoing basis, so we can continue producing our art.

The other thing is I think it's important for the federal government, as I said earlier, to become a leader in the arts. The cultural policy Bruce referred to would set the tone for not only culture, but all the departments in the government so they're working and moving in the same direction. Also, it would set a role model for the other levels of government we have to deal with in order to receive funding and continue programming.

Also, I'd like the federal government to be aware that some of the smaller regions in the country probably need more help than the larger centres, who have a lot more corporate concentration of head offices, where it's easier...well, not easier, as there's more competition in the marketplace there too, but at least you can access some of this money.

I would like to also have the federal government not only focus on what I call the sexy industries. We talked about the new media, electronics and other things that are happening, but the other area, which is not as sexy, not electronic, is alive, where people come together and tell stories and such. It's amazing that in this day of electronics, we can still have a live actor talk to an audience and somehow have this transformation that happens and the stories told. The people believe the actor is not an actor, but a person playing a part. We don't need all these electronic gadgets to make it work. It's still important for people to get together as humans in a room, as opposed to sitting at our computers and connecting into Internet and communicating via electronic media. We can telecommunicate, telecommute. When you telecommute, people still have to have live interaction between human beings. That's still important. I'd like the committee not to forget this in its deliberations.

• 0935

Also, I'd like to state that one of the things that unite the country is culture. We see that in any other country in the world. Culture unites people. We have to remember that.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Ms. Schroeder.

Ms. Trudy Schroeder: I did some preliminary interviews of arts organizations and artists in Manitoba prior to your arrival here. We're very pleased that you're here.

I think one of the things we've learned and some of the policy work we've done, locally on a municipal level as well as on a provincial level, is that the process itself is very important. The process of starting to think about federal cultural policy is important and is valuable in and of itself. The first thing I discovered when I contacted people is that federal cultural policy for many working artists and art organizations, and even people who have been in the community for many years, seems very distant.

Part of it is that the whole cultural dossier is such a big and varied one. Last week I heard at the beginning of a news program on the CBC, “We're going to have a discussion this morning about federal cultural policy”, and they talked about magazines and advertising. I thought, “Just a second. Is that it? Is that Canadian cultural policy?” Many other people I contacted seemed to feel the same way: “What do you mean, federal cultural policy? This is not something that connects with my life.”

I had to rephrase the question to ask something like “When you think of federal programs or you think of various portions of activities the federal government is engaged in, what has touched your life? What do you miss when it's not there? What do you value? What has made your life as an artist or as an arts organization easier or better?” Then they've been able to think about, yes, the CBC is very important to the development of artists across the whole spectrum, and yes, indeed, the various Canada Council programs are very important.

One of the things I found quite interesting, and which I think probably should fit in, is that in Manitoba we have a really good example of the way in which the three or four or more levels of government can work together. There's quite an active group called the Tri-level Arts Committee, and they meet together in Manitoba—the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as well as a number of funding agencies, such as the Winnipeg Foundation. They meet together and they have a very collegial approach to cultural issues within this area. I think that is to the benefit of all of us here in Manitoba. They work together extremely well.

Yes, there is some sort turf development, and people have sometimes I guess a little bit of sensitivity to various roles, but considering the resources we have in Manitoba, I think we benefit tremendously from the way they've been able to work together and look at ways in which the programs at various levels can work together for the benefit of the arts community here in Manitoba. So that's a wonderful thing.

I read in a Time magazine just last week—and I guess it was a Canadian run of Time magazine, but I think this is probably in the international version as well—about the whole issue of the way in which Canada in fact has a much greater impact in international affairs than one would assume from its size. They said this is because of diplomacy and the way in which we're able to present ideas and bring others to our point of view without saying “I'll do what I want or we'll beat you up”, or something along that line.

I think that in the cultural area Canada can be very much the same. Relative to our size, I think we have quite a number of very significant international artists. We have programs and organizations that make a wide international impact. Through the process of developing a cultural policy, I think we can in fact enhance that and make that one of those other ways in which Canada is more significant internationally than one would naturally suppose.

I'm looking at where we might like to be 10, 20, 50 years from now—what kind of a country we would like to see ourselves being at that point in time and how we can reach those goals. I have maybe just two suggestions as starter ideas. I'm sure each discipline would have ideas of where they would like to see archival issues or theatre issues or filmmaking issues or television types of issues in 10, 20, 50 years. A cultural policy can't hold forever, but it is a consensus of the moment. If it's well drafted, it really can have a longstanding impact for quite a number of years.

• 0940

I'm thinking that we should aim for a culture that's known and appreciated by Canadians just as a general sort of statement. Of course that has repercussions for our education system and our national radio and broadcasting system, in that our culture should in fact be known and appreciated by Canadians. That also has repercussions for our arts organizations, which should actually be making real efforts to connect to average Canadians, to Canadians across the spectrum. Secondly, artists should be able to live and work not in poverty in Canada. Thirdly, artists should be able to launch international careers from Canada and remain in Canada. I'm sure there are many others, but that's a start.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Just before we get into further discussion, I wanted to mention what I've heard come up on federal cultural policy. Certainly the Canadian Conference on the Arts, in its paper on working toward cultural policy for the 21st century, talked in its interim report about Canada's federal cultural policy being based on two points: first of all, it focuses on the artist and the creative process; secondly, it focuses on ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to be able to showcase that artist and his or her creation. Perhaps you could comment on whether or not that policy is still relevant today. Do we need to take it further?

Ms. Sanders.

Ms. Pat Sanders: Well, I just want to elaborate a little bit on some of the points Trudy was making, but I'll also respond to that.

One of the issues about a good infrastructure is that you can't have a wobbly top. You have to put money into research and the development of smaller groups that have problems with accessing markets—not only national markets, but international markets. In Manitoba, I think the quality of the work here is great. We have some major organizations, but we also have an enormous, energetic community in all artistic ventures. However, members of that community are not getting the opportunity to disseminate their work outside the province or even outside Canada. I think any cultural policy has to look at helping the smaller groups and the bottom block to develop and grow as much as it helps the top, so that those groups do have access to things that are supported in other ways.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Mr. Sochasky.

Mr. Bob Sochasky: This may be just a continuance of my opening statement, but I just want to say a little bit regarding cultural policy and how it affects us. I'm going to talk about our school. I failed to say that we did have a school; it's both a professional school and a recreational program school. I also want to talk a little bit about what's happened to us with the lack of a long-term cultural policy.

With every cultural policy, if it's a good long-term policy, there comes things like multi-year funding, money for research and development for those institutions. In the past, we have been funded by different arms of the government. We have had our funding taken away and reinstated. In running an institution like the Royal Winnipeg Ballet's school, these things really disrupt the entire process of what we are trying to accomplish and any progress that we've made so far.

When we lost our funding from the Canada Council and it took a year or two to get it back through Heritage Canada, we had to cut programs. We had to cut some of our teachers because we couldn't afford to keep them. Bringing those things back was wonderful and we certainly do really appreciate getting the money back, but this kind of disruption really set us back a few years as far as the direction we were going in was concerned.

Any programming that we do in the school follows three basic steps. One is assessing what programs we should do, what's important to the country and to our city. There is also evaluation of those programs to see what we can do to make them better. And implementation and preservation of the programs is so important. With funding that sometimes goes from one budget year to another depending on what's hot and what's not, it really does set us back quite a bit. For a lot of the progress we made initially, we've had to make that progress all over again.

• 0945

There's also another issue that comes up with this. If we had a cultural policy that was longer than a budget year—and I'm going to refer to that because I'm a finance person—we could give definition to what a national cultural institution is. On one side of it, we're considered as such under one branch of the government, but we're not on the other side of it. To fight for that is a huge effort, takes a huge amount of time, and certainly sets us back a fair amount for not being recognized as a national training institution throughout all branches of the government.

The last thing I want to talk about is what has also happened to the availability of funding for different projects. On one side of it, there is some money available now for millennium projects because of the millennium, and certainly that money is well appreciated. On the other side of it, sometimes it can also do some damage when moneys just appear and then disappear.

When we embarked on a capital campaign for the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, it included building a residence for our school. We identified that as important to keeping the school alive, so moneys became available through infrastructure for the capital funding of that building. On the other side of it, because the timeframes included in the project were so tight, we were not.... Once a building is built, it's very difficult to secure private funding for that building. People like to put money into bricks and mortar when the bricks and mortar are going up or when things are in the planning stages, but it's very difficult to secure private funding for those once the building opens.

If we had some long-term capital funding available for things like our residence and for our school, and if we could tie it in clearly to a private funding solution as well, that would give us a fair amount of advantage when it comes to having our building paid for. As we stand today, the building has been operating for three years and is still not paid for. In terms of finding the private funding now, it is very difficult to do so because the building is up and operating.

So those are the kinds of things that are fallout from the fact that a long-term cultural policy, in our opinion, is not in place. Certainly there are cultural moneys available and there are policies within different branches of the government, but something coordinated and long-term would allow us to seek out those private funding dollars.

These are just some instances of what's happened to us over the last four, five or six years. On one side of it, certainly, we appreciate the funding we do get. On the other side of it, if it was a little more planned, a little more organized, then we could organize ourselves to find private funding to complement the funding we receive from the public sector.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Mr. Duggan, did you have a comment?

Mr. Bruce Duggan: I would just like to echo some of the things that have been said about the need for the federal government to take a leadership role. If we look at what has happened over the last decade, especially in funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage, frankly, there has been a slow process of evaporation from the cultural community. That has been a real problem for us.

There have been suggestions about devolution of federal policy or federal activity, perhaps using the model that was used for training. I would like to say that I think that would be extremely problematic for the cultural life in Manitoba. I can't speak for other provinces, but I know that kind of devolution, that removal of the federal government's responsibility, would be extremely problematic for us. We would urge you not to even consider that.

The other thing that follows from that is the need for federal cultural departments to have strong, engaged regional offices, especially in the Department of Canadian Heritage, but in other agencies as well. We have one office here from Canadian Heritage, and it has been extremely important for us. We don't have a Telefilm office, we don't have some other national agencies' offices. Some of the other national entities, like the NFB and the CBC, have been evaporating out of regional places like Manitoba. We would urge you actually to reverse that process, to increase the engagement in regional offices, and to strengthen those regional offices.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Bajon, you also had a comment.

Mr. Zaz Bajon: Yes, I just wanted to point out that Bob is right. Presently, we're doing a $5-million capital campaign just to bring our building up to date, with no additional new bells and whistles or anything like that. There doesn't seem to be any federal funding available at all. We've tried everything, and there's no money.

• 0950

We received $2 million from the province, and they've been very supportive. We're very fortunate that we live in this province, because culture is very important compared to some of the other provinces.

I think refurbishing and upgrading buildings has to be supported, not only new bricks and mortar, which is far more sexy when you see something. When you build something new, then you have all the infrastructure of managing it, programming, and so on. I think it's really important.

Culture is important because it really defines the country. It's hard to explain, and when you talk to people about what culture is and what you do, the only comparison I can deal with is mental health, because it's the spiritual and psychological well-being of a community, whatever that community is.

Everybody knows what physical health is: it could be a building, it could be the infrastructure or a distribution network to get things out. But programming is sort of the mental health of a cultural organization. I think mental health is not really addressed in the same way, especially when it comes to culture. It's easier to look at physical things, including in the health system, on which the federal government now is focusing. I think we have to remember that culture is the psychological, spiritual, mental well-being of that community.

So if there is no culture, physically we're strong, but what does that mean about us as human beings? I think we have to address that, and we have to find an easy way, that ten-second bite that you have to define. If you can make it black and white, people will understand. If you get into too much detail, people get confused. So the only thing I could come up with is that it's the mental health; it's the spiritual and psychological well-being of that community, and we can't forget it. It doesn't seem important when things are going well. When things aren't going well, that keeps us going. It keeps the physical health of a community going.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to pick up on all these comments about the big picture and get some understanding from participants about what the obstacles are to the development of a federal cultural policy. I ask this not out of partisan reasons but just as a relative newcomer to the federal scene.

It seems to me that for over a decade now the same recommendation has been made that there should be a federal cultural policy. I looked at the working group recommendations that just came out in January or June 1998, and they're remarkably similar to the 1991 CCA recommendations and the 1993 blueprint paper. I'm trying to understand what the barriers are to the actual achievement of this goal. Are there fiscal issues involved? Are there trade issues? Is it globalization? Is it constitutional?

I'm seeking some advice so we can be more effective in the House of Commons to try to put the pressure on the federal government to make that a reality. As Zaz has said, I think we all understand cultural policy as sort of the mental health of a nation. I think all of us understand the economic benefits of a very vibrant arts and cultural policy. Knowing all that, what are the obstacles and what do we need to do to make this a reality before the millennium?

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you. Perhaps you could think about that and bring it forward.

Before I go to Mr. Leslie and Mr. MacInnis, I would like to welcome Paul Léveillé, du Cercle Molière. Perhaps, Mr. Léveillé, you could tell us a little bit about who you are and what your organization does.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Léveillé (Cercle Molière): Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I apologize for being late. I went to the Radisson Hotel close to the airport, the only one I knew of, and that explains why I was late arriving. Again, I apologize. It was silly of me, don't you agree?

I must say that I find public forums like this most interesting. I encourage you to take the same open, rationale approach when dealing with other issues.

I'm here on behalf of the Cercle Molière. For the past several weeks, Radio-Canada has been saying that the Théâtre du Rideau Vert is the oldest theatre company in Canada, but I beg to differ. The Cercle Molière is the oldest. The truth is the Rideau Vert is the oldest professional theatre company, whereas we attained that status a mere twenty or so years ago.

• 0955

It's a pleasure for me to be here and I recognize many faces. It's encouraging to see that you are interested in what we have to say. I agree with many of the comments that were made in the submissions you received. I've read some of them already, in particular Mr. Duggan's and Zaz' comments which were, in my view, quite apropos.

The Cercle Molière is set to celebrate its 75th anniversary next year, the dawn of the new millennium. Several years ago, the Globe and Mail wrote that Cercle Molière was a Canadian miracle and I agree. Our efforts have been supported over the years by cultural groups in Winnipeg and throughout Western Canada and a spirit of open-mindedness has prevailed. The province's 60,000 Franco- Manitobans are in a minority and yet, on a per capita basis, attendance at our company's performances rivals that of any other theatre in Canada.

When you come to Manitoba, you come to a cultural centre quite unlike any other in Canada. We support the concept advocated by other speakers. In terms of a cultural centre in the heart of the country, Winnipeg fits the bill quite nicely.

I realize that some people may have gone on for too long, so I will refrain from doing likewise, as that could prove tedious, but I would like to say something that ties in with what Bruce said earlier about the need for a central structure in Manitoba, the need for offices to represent our community in a responsible way.

As you know, the Department of Canadian Heritage as well as other federal departments responsible for official languages often fail to meet their publicly stated objectives, for a variety of reasons. Having been a provincial public servant for over 30 years, a satisfying, if not always pleasant experience, I know that public servants in Western Canada are sometimes taken advantage of in a rather irresponsible way. Take, for instance, the Official Languages Act. The majority of public servants involved in promoting official languages are assigned duties over and above their other responsibilities, which reflects an unfortunate bias.

While not a critical issue, it's certainly something to consider. We need well-structured regional offices and an opportunity to forge good relations with these offices. Heritage Canada and other departments are doing their utmost to facilitate our endeavours in Manitoba and their contribution is worthy of note. However, true progress could be achieved if we could work together on long-term planning, instead of simply filling out forms which often only confound us.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Leslie and then Mr. MacInnis.

Mr. Bruce Leslie: I just want to make a couple of comments.

One Winnipeg member asked what the barriers to Canadian cultural policy are. I think one of the barriers is the idea that we need some omnibus Canadian cultural policy. I think you have to look at it in terms of every department—Finance, Revenue, Heritage, International Trade, and Industry Canada—having a role to play in developing a cultural policy.

• 1000

We will get there quicker if we try not to think we need a single policy that will cover everything, because there may need to be an attitudinal change within all those departments to sort of understand they have an impact on their cultural policy.

As an example, Trudy mentioned she'd like to see artists in Canada making a living, which is a very important point. Imagine, in the television and film industry, the exports this country has given the world. If we could bring one half of those people back, we would have the most powerful production community in the world, no question.

We would love to see a policy that would allow us to bring some of those people back, or at least keep the people we have. Part of it has to be a realization that we are in a globalizing economy, if you will. That's a word I probably just made up. We have to face that reality and develop our cultural policy so we can grow globally and create the critical mass of investment dollars and production people to stay here in Canada. We have to be able to offer them at least as much as they would get, and not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of ability to produce the shows they want to produce here in Canada.

We're looking for a policy that will help us create large entities that will be able to do that, and we hope to be one of them, of course. That speaks to a lot of things, including issues like foreign ownership, cultural policies in other countries, and allowing partners to come into Canada to supply us with the dollars that are needed to create productions. So I think it has to be looked at in a very wide scope as opposed to a really narrow approach to what our cultural policy should be.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Leslie.

Just before I go on to Mr. MacInnis, you talked about globalization and Canadian culture in a global world. Last Wednesday Sergio Marchi released the cultural industry sectoral advisory group on international trade report, which was three years in the making, on Canadian culture in a global world. If you haven't seen it and you're interested, I have the web site address. It addresses the things we are dealing with today on globalization, trade disputes, and what should be done so we're not in a defensive position. It includes a cross-section of people from the cultural industry. So if you're interested in that, it might be good for discussion.

We don't know what committee will be looking at this paper. It may be the international trade committee of foreign affairs. But again I urge you to look at this, and once the committee has determined who will study it, between the two ministers, give us your submissions.

Mr. MacInnis, please.

Mr. Allen MacInnis: I want to echo and affirm the need for a federal cultural policy. You talked, Bruce Leslie, about an attitudinal change rather than a need for an omnibus bill. But in a way, I think a federal cultural policy would be an attitudinal change.

One of the reasons we need it is because there are a number of different government departments, the Canada Council and Canadian Heritage, and a number of ways we access funding and support for arts and culture. To some extent they also branch off into issues of taxation and all kinds of other federal government departments that don't immediately look like they have anything to do with culture. The need to have certain principles affirmed by a federal cultural policy is evident in the fact that periodically one agency, or the work of one agency, bumps up against the work of another.

I think sponsorship is the most obvious example. There is the desire in the community to look after people's physical health by ending smoking, but on the other hand we have a huge problem with the amount of money available through tobacco sponsorship.

I would hope a federal cultural policy—this omnibus bill—would not be so specific that we would feel fenced in, but would affirm principles that give us confidence that we're not tripping over each other and that the arts and culture are not coming dead last when the needs and goals of other government departments are being pursued.

• 1005

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Do you care to comment, though, on my question on what you thought were the barriers? What are the barriers to this omnibus bill?

Mr. Allen MacInnis: I think one of the barriers is that we have, over the last many years, lost a sense of national purpose because we have been, in many ways, affirming the vitality and the specificity of the various regions of this country. I think on some levels there are constitutional challenges that come up simply because our notion of one nation is not shared all across the country in the same way, all at the same time. I think there's great value in the specificity of various regions and communities. I think that challenge could be overcome, but I think it's going to take a fair amount of work and probably a long time. I actually think 10 or 11 years of working at this isn't such a terribly long time. On some level, as an artist, I'm impatient for that federal cultural policy to give me a little confidence about the future, but I think it might take another 10 or 11 years. I think we're going to have to go through a lot of growing pains about our sense of our nationhood.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I have Ms. Sweeney, Ms. Stothers, Mr. Duggan, Mr. Bajon, and Ms. Schroeder. Ms. Sweeney.

Ms. Shelley Sweeney: I just wanted to say I think Bill C-54, which talks about personal privacy and electronic issues, is extremely important, and I applaud the initiative of the government. I think, though, there needs to be more done in the informational policy arena, and I point to the fact that the National Archives has not had a national archivist for nearly two years. I think this has had a severe effect on the community and on our ability to lead in the informational arena at the federal level.

Canada does have a strong international profile, particularly with regard to electronic records, but in a number of areas in the cultural side as well, and we really do need leadership at this very top level. And as you know, Dr. English has been looking at the role of the National Archives, the National Library, and so on in producing a federal informational policy that would be in some measure the equivalent of a cultural policy.

I wanted to pick up on what Trudy talked about: culture known and appreciated by Canadians. The archival community is very concerned about this and we're looking at the Canadian archival information network to bring the descriptions of our holdings out to the Canadian community. I think we need to come out of hiding and bring the information to the average Canadian who now wants to access this. I think it's very important for the development of Canadian identity. In this time of migrating information and blurring of traditional boundaries between countries, it's even more important we appreciate our own heritage and history.

You see that in Quebec. Quebec is very, very conscious of their history and they're very supportive of their archives. It's exemplary. And in the rest of English Canada, because there isn't that same perceived threat, you don't get that same reaction. With the United States, of course, there is a great pressure on Canada to solidify and be aware of what a Canadian is. Knowing our heritage and our history is critical to that.

My final point is that we do a lot of work with television companies, with the CBC, with playwrights and artists, with museums. We provide the material they then use to create their artistic works. So it's not very sexy. We're sort of in behind.... Well, I don't want to say that I'm not very sexy.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Ms. Shelley Sweeney: You can strike that comment.

A voice: We won't tell anyone.

• 1010

Ms. Shelley Sweeney: But the thing is that archives do not have a high profile, so people tend to forget that we're there. Here we are, trying to support all of these endeavours in a quiet way, so I just want to raise our profile a bit.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Ms. Sweeney.

Ms. Stothers.

Ms. Marilyn Stothers: I would like to comment on my area, fine crafts.

There are two questions you have: one has to do with past or present support the federal government has given crafts, my area; and the other has to do with what trade rules and things have done to fine crafts. To do that I have to be very specific and sort of take it through, if you don't mind, because I think this illustrates what is happening with no cultural policy.

The Canadian Crafts Council was founded in 1974. The federal government funded about 50% of the budget of the council because there was an office in Ottawa and the Department of Communications at that time relied on the Canadian Crafts Council office in Ottawa to help them and give them advice on different areas, federal areas of craft. During the years this happened for the GST, the status of the artists, the copyright laws, all of that. The Canadian Crafts Council responded on behalf of crafts people across this country. The crafts council members are each of the provincial crafts councils, so in every province there is a crafts council that belongs to this.

In 1994 the federal government said “We will only give you 50% of your funding, and in 1995 we will give you nothing.” So from 1995 to this time, the government has not supported crafts, period. I'm talking about fine crafts.

When I go to the World Crafts Council, where I represent the Canadian Crafts Federation, which it is now called, the countries there look to me and ask me about what is happening federally, and I feel rather ashamed—that's a strong word, but it is the fact—that I have to say my federal government, Canada, does not support the Canadian crafts people in the way they used to do, or in the way they should be doing.

So since 1995 the Canadian Crafts Council, which last year became the Canadian Crafts Federation, has been run by volunteers on next to no money. But we feel that Canadian crafts are a very important part of our heritage and our culture. I think you just have to go to any museum across this country to see how much of the museums are due to the work of fine crafts people throughout the centuries that Canada has seen.

So if you were thinking of a cultural policy, I think some of that has to be tied to funding to have one national body that represents whatever area of culture is being considered. The Canadian Crafts Federation, now working, as I say, on volunteers and next to no money, is working out of the Ontario Crafts Council office in Toronto, and the Ontario government has completely stopped their funding, period. They have no funding either, and yet here we have a group of people who are contributing to the economy of Canada in a very strong way.

From Manitoba alone, I have documents from 1996 in which the Manitoba Crafts Council, with the help of the culture, heritage, and citizenship department here, developed a whole economic survey of how important crafts are to the economics of Canada, and of Manitoba especially.

So we have those things, and we are a determined community, as I think everybody here is a determined community, because we believe so strongly in culture. But I think it's very important for the federal government to take a stand.

In crafts especially, we do not have a national crafts magazine. The Americans do; the Europeans do. Everywhere, strongly developed countries have a national crafts presence to educate the public. We do not have that.

So I want to bring to you an example of how a very strong cultural community is fending for itself—not successfully, in a sense; it could be so much better. And a cultural policy, as we have discussed here, would certainly be a backbone for that.

The group that is meeting in the east, in Toronto, will be presented with a paper from the group that is representing Canadian Crafts Federation there.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): We would also encourage you to provide written submissions with specific recommendations—that's to all of you—by March 30, and we would welcome those specific recommendations.

• 1015

Ms. Marilyn Stothers: May I just add one more thing? This is of very great concern.

The NAFTA agreement with the Americans has created a great problem with Canadian fine crafts, especially from Quebec, where they're marketing strongly, but also from other areas, such as Alberta. People who are involved in workshops and want to market their work or do anything across the border are having a very difficult time, because sometimes they are being stopped at the border and are not being allowed to go in. Then they are blackballed, and they cannot return to the United States. So someone should look into the issue of marketing outside our own country.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

The list is getting longer, so perhaps everyone could shorten their responses. On my list I have Mr. Duggan, Mr. Bajon, Ms. Schroeder, Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Sauvageau, Ms. Karpyschin, Mr. Sochasky, and Mr. Carr. Mr. Duggan.

Mr. Bruce Duggan: Two hours is not enough. I just wanted to make that point, and here is a good time to make it.

I'd like to pick up on something Ms. Stothers and Mr. Sauvageau said when they talked about international trade and those kinds of issues. The first public policy thing in arts and culture I ever did was about the cultural portion of the free trade agreement. Actually, it was the last time I appeared before this committee in Ottawa. I remember saying that the notwithstanding clause—at that point the notwithstanding clause was the most obscure thing you could ever talk about—contained within it a time bomb that would blow up some time later when the Americans wanted to punish us for some kind of cultural act. I remember saying that one of the problems with it is that it isn't specific to the cultural area, that you can exact a punishment in a different sector, for instance, steel. Many members of the committee said that's ridiculous, it would never happen. It's pretty clear that it actually would have happened and may still happen.

During a meeting with a Swedish delegation that came to Canada to discuss cultural quality and cultural international exchanges, one of the things I found to be really interesting was the idea that instead of us always reacting, always asking what will the Americans do and how can we get around that, we should ask ourselves what kinds of cultural exchange we want that include trade but are not limited to trade. What are they? On what terms do we want to send our artists, our artists' work, or our cultural industry products to other countries, and on what terms do we want to bring them back? Let's ask those questions.

Also, let's find some willing partners to begin to negotiate for that, such as the European Union, Brazil, and the Asian countries, which recognize the value and role of cultural life. They recognize that it has industrial applications and trade implications, but it's not confined to that.

Let's develop a kind of protocol for how these exchanges would happen and how trade could happen in this area. Once we've laid out a multilateral blueprint on culture, then we could invite the Americans to join us in this process. Instead of always being focused on putting out the fire, let's ask ourselves how we want to engage with the rest of the world.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Again, I would encourage you to read Culture and Trade: Canadian Culture in a Global World, because that's exactly what this is addressing. I would encourage you also to provide your comments and those of CCA.

Mr. Bruce Duggan: I have one other comment.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Just the one.

Mr. Bruce Duggan: Culture is not very sexy. I'll be very brief. If a country is a marriage, culture is the sex.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Bajon.

Mr. Zaz Bajon: How am I supposed to follow that?

Judy asked why we don't have a culture policy. The things that popped into my mind are that we have a rapidly changing environment where the ecology is changing; you don't want to commit yourself; you have to find a way of answering it; or else the government of the day, whoever that government is, doesn't want their feet held to the fire when things don't work out and there are problems.

I think we always make things far more complicated than necessary. I think we could focus on generalities and then get the specifics as we break it down. The cultural policy could be very simple, and it could be applied to all the departments.

• 1020

Allen mentioned affirming principles. Those are to encourage, foster, and support cultural activity throughout government agencies and the country. You could also break it down provincially.

Because we are a bilingual country, I think it's very important that culture does exist and bilingualism exists, and I think a perfect example is Le Cirque. A lot of us outside of Quebec think Quebec is very unique and very fortunate to live next door to a big neighbour who uses the same language we do. They have the pleasure of translating everything into their own language. Once you do that, you change whatever that work of art is into that language, so you have a way of expressing it differently from the Americans. We're not as fortunate in that regard as Quebec is.

But when you do break it down, you're going to have to discriminate against certain regions, because the government has a specific mandate to encourage, say, bilingualism. So maybe there should be more money put into areas where there isn't as much support. We think Quebec gets a lot of money, but there isn't as much support in other ways.

I think if it's just the general phrase of encourage, foster, and support cultural activity, at the beginning you could apply that to every department. What you're doing is encouraging, fostering, and supporting cultural activity. So when something comes up in another department and they ask what's our mandate, it is to encourage, support, and foster. You want the government and the civil servants working there saying “This is what we have to do, and how can we make it work”, as opposed to “It doesn't fit into the legislation and the rules and regulations we have to follow”.

Then you could break it down into various areas. Because geographically Canada is so diverse, if you try to develop a cultural policy for all of the country it becomes difficult and cumbersome. The more difficult and cumbersome it becomes, the less likely it is that it will become a reality.

So I think if we can find basic affirming principles, to use Allen's words, which apply everywhere, then each department can break it down depending on what their needs are within government and how they act according to government legislation, etc.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

Ms Schroeder.

Ms. Trudy Schroeder: Going back to the question that was asked here—that is, what are the barriers to Canadian cultural policy—as I've looked at the documents produced by the CCA and a number of cultural agencies in the past decade or 15 years, it seems to me that they have been inextricably bound up with money issues. Realistically, we have been in a time when the federal government has actually come face to face with the fact that there was an overexpenditure of resources for the country.

I think that brings us to a point now where we are in a situation where there is the possibility of reinvestment. Finally, there is the possibility that in a very rational and thought-out way there can be a reinvestment. It may not necessarily be a massive one or with the kind of scope or speed that's perhaps required, but I think the possibility is there now. That perhaps makes it less of a sticking point when it comes to dealing with the cultural policy. I don't see how you can actually deal with the cultural issues where the need is glaring. You don't want to deal with it at a time when you actually have to cut health care transfer payments to the provinces. Cultural policy doesn't loom large at that point, although I would say that it probably should.

I would think about this whole idea of stopping before reinvestment happens and working on the idea of a philosophical framework. Divorce it from dollars at first. It might have to be slightly more complex than a three-word phrase, but I think it's a start. Then we could work from those kinds of guiding principles. As possibilities for reinvestment emerge, it could be done in a way that appears to focus on where in fact we want to go. I think that could be feasible and not too scary.

I'm sure this particular committee has been dealing with these issues in a very thoughtful way over many years, but it has not been possible actually to bring it forward to the entire Parliament and have something passed. Perhaps now is the time when the preparatory work that has gone on can bear some fruit.

I would think those fiscal issues are number one. The second big barrier that has been brought up is the complexity. Let's make it simple first.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

Mr. Bélanger.

• 1025

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to very gently reprimand one of our panellists, if I may—Madam Sweeney. I had occasion to do the same to someone else last night, so please bear with me.

You used an expression that irks me—“Quebec and English Canada”—in your presentation a while ago. I'm a member of Parliament from Ontario. I represent a riding that has 40% francophones. There are roughly one million francophones outside of Quebec, and 60,000 here. There's a province that is officially bilingual called New Brunswick. In your definition of English Canada, one might wonder where those people sit.

Ms. Shelley Sweeney: I have a reason for that. The Association des archivistes du Québec actually feel they are the official representatives of francophones in other parts of Canada.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I understand that, but I would ask you not to fall for that trap.

Ms. Shelley Sweeney: Okay.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's just a gentle reprimand. Remember the reality of the country in the sense that there are one million francophones and 800,000, or perhaps a little less now, but 600,000 to 700,000 anglophones living in Quebec. That phrase, “Quebec and English Canada”, belittles those two million people. We should be aware of that, that's all. It's just a gentle reprimand.

Ms. Shelley Sweeney: I guess from our point of view we work very closely with the Association des archivistes du Québec, and in that relationship we're trying to recognize their definition. But I take your point.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I've said what I wanted to say on that.

On the matter of the archives, I'm very glad you pointed out the English report that is in the department now. I think it will likely lead to some significant changes in the structure there and the finalization of appointing an archivist to replace the one that left a little while back.

I'd like to ask a few questions of the people here, if I may. In terms of cultural policy, is there a desire—we picked it up loud and clear in Thunder Bay yesterday—on the fiscal side to encourage endowments in a massive way? I'm talking about something of the scope we've never seen yet in the country, and perhaps over a 25-year period. At the end of that we would have endowments that, if they didn't guarantee a financial self-sufficiency, would at least come close to it. I wouldn't mind hearing comments on that.

I'd like to know what the per capita contributions in Winnipeg are, if that's possible, and if there's a cultural policy in Winnipeg or Manitoba. It might be useful for the committee and our staff to look at that.

I really appreciated Madam Stothers' last comment, that now may be a better time than before. I think you're pretty accurate in describing the situation we all face in the country. Most governments, federal or provincial, face a similar situation of being over-stretched financially. That's not totally behind us, but a good chunk of it is. Now seems to be the time to strike. Even if we don't get it 100% right, as Mr. Duggan said, let's get started.

We will have a report from this committee, hopefully before the end the session in June. Then it will be a matter of organizations such as yours pushing, prodding and encouraging members of the opposition, and members of the government who are committed to making this happen.

Those are my general comments. I'd like the next few people to give some specifics in terms of what I've asked. Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Rather than comment on the situation of Francophones outside Quebec, I will move immediately to another topic.

If you don't mind, I would like to tell you about an interesting encounter I had with Mr. Marchi. It happened at a round table similar to this one in Chicago. In attendance were representatives of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the theatre and ballet and various arts and culture groups.

• 1030

At one point during the discussion, the Americans asked the following question: What is Canadian culture? Whether they were right or wrong to ask the question, I can't say. I'm simply relating to you the question they put to Mr. Marchi. What is Canadian culture? When Americans welcome a Canadian artist, theatre group or dance ensemble, they can't tell that these performers are from Canada. They think they're from another US state. Therefore, how do you define Canadian culture in relation to our American culture? As he was leaving the room, Mr. Marchi—not Heritage Minister Copps, mind you—appeared shaken and said: "We have quite a hill to climb".

This encounter made something of an impression on me. Exchanges like the ones we are having today are enjoyable and rewarding, particularly when I see how passionately you define your culture. Perception is indeed a factor. Others may not perceive your culture as you or we seated here at this table do. That was one of the experiences I had.

Yesterday in Thunder Bay, we heard a very interesting proposal and I'd like to get your comments on it. A great deal of money has been squandered on anti-smoking campaigns. I use the word "squandered" because the results we were hoping for never materialized. Money has also been spent on initiatives such as PARTICIPaction. Would you like the government to provide funding to your businesses and organizations for a campaign to promote culture?

I don't believe we've heard from Mr. Carr and I would like to ask him something. If the government offered to eliminate the GST on books, which would be akin to a 7 per cent permanent grant, do you think that this would help the book publishing industry? I recall reading something about this, perhaps not in one of the books you published, but somewhere.

Mr. Sochasky, you mentioned ongoing funding and long-term capital funding. For instance, if Heritage Canada were to grant you some funding, you would like it to be guaranteed for three years. Is that the type of funding you would like your organization to receive?

I know Mr. Duggan commented on this, but I would also like to remind you that despite the language barrier which shields us somewhat from the American press, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-55.

I would also like to get your comments on the cultural exception clause which could be on the table during the next round of talks. We are going to be negotiating free trade or trade agreements with other countries. Should a cultural exception clause be included, without fail, in all of these agreements?

Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Cherry Karpyschin.

Ms. Cherry Karpyschin: I'll start by responding to Mr. Bélanger's question for the Prairie Theatre Exchange. I'll just read what we have, because I think it responds to what you said.

If arts and culture is to thrive in this country, the federal government must provide a leadership role in being proactive and not reactive to the needs of the industry. When difficulties arise, most arts and culture groups do not want bail-outs; they want to earn their way.

We need to work together to develop a sustainable infrastructure and a long-term investment system so arts and culture does not have to live hand to mouth or payday to payday.

There is more to it. Do I know the answer? No, but it is a conversation that's happening a lot around this table and in the arts community here in Winnipeg.

How do we survive tomorrow, and what are the steps in place? There is an arts stabilization plan that is happening here in Manitoba, as there is in B.C. and Alberta and Ontario and New Brunswick. Is this the route to go? I think it certainly is a start.

I think what we need to do.... Judy, it's partly in response to what you're saying; that is, what is the long-term vision? I just did a quick calculation here. In Manitoba, with four arts groups, the Cercle Molière, MTC, PTE, Manitoba Theatre for Young People, there are over 150 years of life in four organizations in Winnipeg alone.

• 1035

I think we've said we're here for the long haul. We've been here a long time, and we want to be here longer. So how do we embrace what we have? We've got a great foundation, not only in Manitoba, but across Canada. So how do we take what we have, get through here, but ensure that we can be here for the tomorrows and for the future of our children?

I think one of the ways for doing that on a real fundamental side is how do we get back into the schools that arts is a credible topic, a credible subject? It isn't just about academics and science. There are a lot of children out there who aren't academics, who aren't science students; they're creative artists. But there isn't a place for them to go. No, they can't do math, but is that wrong? Give them a paintbrush and they draw a wonderful mural. I'd love to be able to do that. I can do math, because I do my budget, thank God. But I think there's something in that.

I know kids who have dropped out of school in grade 10, and it's not because they can't go to school; it's because they can't do what's on the table. But is this not a world that says you should be who you are, and we should be able to provide you the opportunity to do what you are good at, not just what we think you should be good at? Would this not be a better place if we could embrace the arts and culture and allow those students to flourish in that milieu?

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

I have a follow-up on what you said. In December 1997 there was an article that appeared on the front page of the arts section, fortunately, not the front page of the report on business, with a caption of “Arts, not computers, make kids creative”. It talks about, and this is something we as a government look at too, the future of jobs and how we will prepare our youth for the next millennium.

The article went on to quote empirical data that children who are exposed to the arts, and particularly music, at an early age actually score much higher on their SATs in math and science. That whole concept was something that was never really looked at. We never really thought about it.

I would encourage you to look into that more. This perhaps is a direction we should take as we look into how we prepare our youth for the future. Thank you for bringing that up.

Next on my list is Mr. Sochasky.

Mr. Bob Sochasky: In answer to a couple of points that were brought up here by the committee, I'll try to answer them very quickly, because I know time is running out.

With regard to long-term funding, three years would be a good step forward. I'd like to see it longer than three years, probably five years.

There are two issues here in funding. One is operational funding, and the other one is moneys that come into the operations for production-related issues, to pay the rent, things like that.

In capital funding, if there were at least a window of opportunity to receive capital funding, even if it crosses over budget years and things like that, it's just creative accounting; that's all that is. We would love to have the opportunity to have access to funds to build our residence and then put it into our plan where we would do it over a period of two years or three years where actually the funding would come in.

So if the commitments were made and then a little bit of creative accounting done to cross over budget years, to us that would have been a better advantage because of our access to private funds.

On the second question, regarding endowments, yes, this is the way to go, absolutely, for our organization to survive. We are going on to our sixtieth year next year, and for us to survive another sixty years we have to start building endowments. We have to start creating these funds so we can actually fund ourselves for the future. Many times I've worked with United States companies, and their endowment funds are amazing, the millions of dollars that are there.

That kind of works right into my third point. We are starting our endowment fund. We have started an endowment fund for a production fund for new works for the future. That's a $10 million endowment fund that we're beginning.

• 1040

One of the comments in the five points that were brought forward is asking what has been working well. Well, this leads right into that. I know there have been some steps made by Revenue Canada to increase the tax advantages so people can donate to the arts and the cultural institutions and things like that. That's been working well. It needs to work further. There are a lot of partners out there who are willing to donate money to institutions such as ours and others that are represented here. We need to continue that. We need to say we have many corporate partners right now that are more than willing to donate many thousands of dollars to us if in fact there were some advantage to them for tax reasons.

So let's not limit the partnerships that are there now for funding cultural institutions. Let's expand those. If we do that through individuals and through corporations, that can be done immediately. That doesn't have to wait.

Those are the kinds of things I think this committee can take back and utilize and share with the other parts of the government. If anyone needs any help, I'll be more than happy to help. But I certainly think there are some things that immediately can be done to allow us to raise funds, and not just from government and public sources but from the private sources too. Those are ways to do it.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much, and I think we will call upon you.

I guess one of the things I'd like to ask you to think about when you come to help us on this is one of the criticisms we've heard with respect to the removal of the capital gains tax on the gifts to publicly held charities or endowment funds to the Royal Winnipeg Ballet is it's going to go to the rich organizations, the noted ones. What happens to the small regional theatre? The rich are directing who the money should go to. I want you to help us address that issue.

Mr. Carr.

Mr. David Carr: I'm not sure what the barriers to cultural policy are, or even what themes they should touch on. But speaking for my sector, which is book publishing and the broader sector, the printed word—and I think it applies to the cultural industries as well—an important theme of any cultural policy in any drift would have to be the emphasis on the domestic audience and the domestic marketplace. Maybe picking up on what Shelley was talking about, those of us in the printed word I think often feel we're not quite as sexy as some of the other arts and that one way in which government tries to make us sexy is through emphasizing exports.

Canadian books have a good track record of export. Here in Manitoba, about 20% of our book sales come from exports. But I think for us the most important thing still remains Canadian readers, Canadian audiences. I'm not sure what the figures are in book publishing; it's probably in the order of 30% or 40% of book sales across the country are coming from the Canadian-controlled sector. It should be much higher. It's higher in book publishing than it is in other cultural industries, such as film.

What we would like to see, or continue to see, is some emphasis on helping us strengthen ourselves in the domestic marketplace, continue to provide books and magazines that tell Canadian stories to Canadians across the country, and strengthen the infrastructure we need to do that.

The current mix of programs for book publishers is a good example of a good way to do that, because in the last five or ten years this government and our associations have worked very hard to make sure that both the Canada Council program and most importantly the Department of Heritage's own program are accessible to publishers across the country in ways they weren't before. Smaller regional publishers are now getting benefits from those programs that they weren't seeing ten years ago—although it would be nice to have the GST taken off books, because it is a tax on reading, I agree with you there.

I have to admit that we are disappointed in the government's recent decision about Bertelsmann's takeover of Random House. I think that's an important area, and it does pick up the globalization theme that runs through all of this. This is a small marketplace. When you have very big players like Bertelsmann coming into it and producing a company that is, as far as I can tell, as big as the five largest Canadian-owned publishers combined, the ecology of the book marketplace changes dramatically.

So we're hoping that the federal government will be a little bit more proactive in looking at the ownership question. Certainly we support things like Bill C-55 in the magazine area.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much, Mr. Carr.

Next is Ms. Saborowski.

• 1045

Ms. Alexa Saborowski: I want to talk about film and television for a moment. I want to mention that federal support for the industry has been critical to its success, through Telefilm, the newly named Canadian Television Fund, and the tax credits as well.

Just to reiterate, the concern for Manitoba is again regional access to the programs and to the funding, and that's something we hear over and over again from our producers. They're always concerned about that. When looking at the Telefilm money over the past years, applications from the west have declined, and it's not because the producers aren't here, but the money is triggered by broadcast licences. When the broadcasters aren't spending in the west, the western productions fall. So even though the federal money is available, it has some strings attached to it.

Secondly, to talk about tax cuts for a moment, which no one has mentioned yet, but that's the favourite buzzword in our industry, and it has been in the news recently as well, both the Canadian content tax credit and the production services tax credit have been very beneficial to the industry and have helped develop the producers as well as the infrastructure. The production services credit in particular—it has been suggested that it perhaps be removed, and it's just recently been reinstated over the last year or two—especially in the west, here in Manitoba, serves to develop the infrastructure and the industry. Given the nature of the industry and the time involved in developing and producing projects, local producers don't have the necessary volume to maintain the infrastructure they need. So by having extra incentives to import production, it keeps the crews busy, it keeps the suppliers busy, and the local producers benefit from that. It trains the crew, which we need desperately. It's a happy equation, and we have a mix of both indigenous and foreign production.

So from the province's point of view, we really support the federal production services credit. I'll wrap it there.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

Mr. Bruce Duggan.

Mr. Bruce Duggan: A few quick hits.

On cultural policies, the Netherlands has a very good draft that I think is worth using as a template. The Australian one is very good. About eight or ten years ago the federal government put together something called Vital Links, which was a very good template for cultural industries.

In Manitoba there is a draft cultural policy for the city of Winnipeg, which Trudy has a guiding hand in writing. It's very good. It's one of the best I've read for municipalities. There is a provincial cultural policy, which I think was put in place when you were the minister of culture, or near then, which is quite good and needs updating.

One of the reasons we look to Quebec for leadership is that in Quebec there is a requirement that if you're going to be part of an association, a municipality, you have to have a cultural policy. I think getting some of those, getting them translated and getting them analysed, might be really useful for your committee's work.

On the trade agreements, there are bilateral trade agreements being signed on a fairly regular basis now. It seems to me that as an interim step, until we get to a multilateral agreement on culture, as a matter of policy, we don't have a notwithstanding clause in those things. Most governments that we engage in these agreements with wouldn't want a notwithstanding clause. But the problem is we're using a template that we agreed to originally that is not serving our end.

On the endowments, I echo the need that endowment funding be available and support for endowment funding be available to all organizations that qualify, and that it not be a size or locale situation. The Churchill Arts Council is as much in need of an endowment as the Royal Winnipeg Ballet.

It seems to me essential that we increase benefits for charitable donations. We talk about being the cultural heart of Canada. One reason is we have the highest per capita attendance at arts events. The other one is that we have the highest per capita donations to arts activities in Canada. It's not because we're a rich province; it's because the people in this province recognize the need and the value of those organizations and are willing to put their money where their mouth is. We would urge the federal government to look at strengthening that support, strengthening that exemption or the benefit of giving a cash donation.

On the issue of trying to strengthen the linkages between provinces, and also our presence internationally, especially in the United States, one of the most problematic things the federal government has done in the last ten years is to remove itself almost completely from the support of touring and exchanges, not just performing arts exchanges but the whole process of touring and exchanges. I would look to that as a significant reinvestment.

• 1050

The last one would be the issue of Canadian cities of culture—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In the country?

Mr. Bruce Duggan: Yes, initially touring. The federal government, with the Canada Council and other programs, has virtually backed out of that. One of the reasons we find ourselves so isolated is because of that lack of exchange.

The last one would be the idea of Canadian cities of culture. This is a process in Europe where a different city is identified as a city of culture and the European Union and the state and provincial and local governments put money into it.

I'm on the Winnipeg Millennium Council with Monsieur Léveillé, and as a millennium project, or shortly thereafter, we would like to be the inaugural Canadian city of culture. We can find money, we're sure, from the private sector and from the province and the city to support that. We would look to the federal government to initiate a cities of culture program, and we would offer to be the inaugural one. You could solve all the problems with us and then go on from there.

It won't be cheap, but if it's done right and consistently, it will change Americans' and Canadians' view of what Canada is, because it will highlight year after year, place after place, the role and value of cultural life in the country.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Zaz Bajon.

Mr. Zaz Bajon: I'd like to address the endowments. The endowments are not a panacea. Bob mentioned the U.S. of A. Their tax laws are totally different. They have some very wealthy families because of the estate planning that is done in order to minimize or avoid taxes. I don't think it works. It works for certain groups, and I'll get to that in a minute.

As the chair has indicated, some of the smaller groups won't have access to that capital, i.e. large corporations who can give. Corporations are not interested in giving to endowments because they think they can manage their money much better than a non-profit group. Individuals would probably be high, and individuals would probably be the area where we could focus.

I think for major groups, like the Manitoba Theatre Centre, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, and others, endowment is a feasible way of going. It will help underwrite whatever shortfall exists in order for us to continue our programming.

I'm amazed when I hear the negative response in Ontario to Mr. Jackman's proposal of creating endowments or foundations for all the cultural groups. Everybody virtually went off the deep end because it was not the right model. In the model they proposed, the group who set up the foundation really has no control. All they get is the revenue generated by the endowment capital that is in their plan. The plan is really still controlled and run by the provincial government. So it's like a child. You control the purse with an allowance. It doesn't give you the flexibility.

The endowments we're looking at, and the ones that Bob has indicated, are ones run by the organization, where they have total control over the capital and can deal with it in accordance with Revenue Canada regulations and disperse.... I think that's a good idea and should be encouraged. I think there should be more foundations set up across the country, because that's another way of helping with tax credits, etc.

For Benoît, I'd like to put my foot in this troubled water of Mr. Marchi's comments and dealings in Chicago. It's very difficult to define culture. Canada is a young country, so we're still evolving our culture. Culture is not stagnant; it keeps changing. As we talked about the new technology, things are changing. There are new ways of doing business. But culture really is...I'm trying to define it, and it's not a very good definition. It's an expression of a Canadian artist reflecting—again the word “reflecting”—our society through that art form. It's not somebody else's reflection; it's our reflection. I think that's what we're talking about. It's intangible, and we need to express ourselves, whether we express it through classical work, other people's work—the way we do it is different.

• 1055

I think Robert Lepage is a perfect example from Quebec, who goes all over the world and does some very unique things. We have some artists who reflect Canada. Fred Penner is here. He does incredible work, and it's known as Canadian. Some of the songs he sings are out there in other countries with other people, but it's the way the music is arranged, how it's done, how it's presented.

There are so many other ways of defining it. The only word that comes to me is that it's a reflection. So it depends on what you do and how you do it; it reflects back.

The Americans don't realize it, because they've really dominated. They don't have to express it or define it; it's just there. It's present. It's so strongly rooted that they don't have to fight for it.

The problem with Canada is that our culture is not strongly rooted, because we're a young country and it's still evolving. It's not defined, because it's a combination of many cultures and we're still trying to evolve it. So all we can do is reflect the way we do it, and that's us. It becomes very difficult.

It's easier with language. If you have a different language, you can fight for your culture. But if you use the same language and you're a multicultural country, it becomes even more difficult. The only way to do it is for artists to express themselves and reflect our society, what we're all about, in whatever art form they're dealing with.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

We're just about out of time. I have two speakers still on the list—Ms. Schroeder and Ms. Sweeney—or maybe three. What I would like to do is open it up to the audience; we haven't done that. Perhaps I could ask you to keep your last comments short so we can go to the audience.

Ms. Trudy Schroeder: I have three quick points on endowments.

Some really good work has been done by the Ford Foundation in the United States. When they started up their arts stabilization program, they worked very much on the endowment fund. They found that just encouraging endowments actually in some ways weakened organizations. They became endowment dependent and really didn't work on some of the other capacity-building tools. Some really good research has been done there that should figure into your thinking.

As you probably know, many groups across Canada have been working on arts stabilization models, which we certainly have been working on and I've been very involved in here. What we saw in that process was that very question of how do we retain our cultural heritage, how do we keep the organizations within our areas strong and functioning and able to work in the long run?

Yes, endowments are part of it. The Ford Foundation suggest that arts organizations should have endowments of at least 100% of their annual operating budgets, but in addition to that, they should have working capital of 25% of their annual operating budgets. That means they have a capacity to try new things and work in a very dynamic kind of way to interact with possibilities and opportunities, and perhaps drawbacks have come their way in a certain season.

The third thing that's really important, and I think perhaps the most critical thing that has come out in this whole discussion for me—not the discussion today, but the whole idea of arts stabilization—is the fact that our funding bodies have been a part of the problem. It has been the tradition, actually, to reward organizations that have continually experienced deficits, and in fact have accumulated rather large deficits. Those organizations have benefited from rather large bailouts at various points in time from taking risks.

Organizations that have been extremely well managed, that have had good seasons, that have made good decisions, have been penalized by funding agencies because they were seen to not need the dollars. I would suggest that those are the better investments, because those are organizations that are continuously improving their products, connecting with their audiences, and doing all those sorts of things...not that a good organization can't have a bad year or sometimes be in need of bailouts, but I think the whole idea of endowments, art stabilization, as well as a change in the way the funder—particularly I suppose I'm talking about the Canada Council at this point—is looking at the finances of organizations and capacity-building within organizations is really critical for long-term stability in the arts.

There was another question about funding and cultural policies. In Manitoba we actually have a really good level of funding from the Canada Council on an organization level, because per capita we have so many really artistically fine organizations. The Canada Council of course gives the dollars to these very fine organizations, so Manitoba's per capita funding from the Canada Council for organizations is higher than the average or higher than one would expect for our population.

For individual artists, it's lower, however. Part of that is because our individual artists are sort of far removed from the Canada Council and from access to the people who can help them make the grants. We need to work on having access for our individual artists to those Canada Council funds.

• 1100

Secondly, on a provincial level, our provincial government is very supportive. On a municipal level, the municipal government in Winnipeg actually has the lowest level of per capita support for the arts of any major city in Canada. It's at $3.03 per capita, so we're trying to work on that.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Ms. Sweeney.

Ms. Shelley Sweeney: I just wanted to address this issue of endowments. As you know, the Hudson's Bay Company received a $65 million tax benefit from the government for donating the Hudson's Bay archives. They then turned around, took that entire amount, and created the Hudson's Bay Foundation, which has now just created a state-of-the-art facility for the holdings. In terms of what can be done from the private sector, I would suggest that this is extremely valuable. Therefore, they are no longer dependent upon government grants, so there's more for the rest of us.

As one last thing, I want to pick up on David's point. Archivaria is our national journal, and a foreign publisher recently asked to take over that publication. We put a lot of our membership dues into supporting Archivaria, and we put in a lot of volunteer hours and so on. We could have let that publisher take it over, but we would have lost all rights to that publication. That means we would have been writing the articles, but they would have been taking the profit. You can also bet that they would not have left Archivaria at the very modest price it is now. They would have turned around and jacked it up, and we would be paying through the nose for our own efforts.

This is a critical point about these large foreign publishers. They're coming in and are scooping up the last of the remaining scholarly publications. As you know, CHRC has been continually decreasing its funding for these programs, so we're very aware that we're under the gun in trying very hard to stay out of the clutches of these foreign interests.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

I'll turn it over to the audience for a couple of quick comments—and please identify yourself.

Ms. Helma Rojje (Individual Presentation): I'm Helma Rojje, and I'm a visual artist. I work out of Winnipeg Beach. I'd like to say that I've heard everything I wanted to hear today, especially going as far back as 1989, when Bruce was at the free trade negotiations and pointed us in the right direction.

I want to refer to Marilyn Stothers. Marilyn is in the Crafts Council, which is the association for the individual crafter, the fine crafter.

I'm a visual artist, but I'm also an individual one. The comments around here were very much for groups that are represented. Of course the individual artist has also a group. It's called Canadian Artists Representation, but it works in a different manner. I do know that this organization hasn't received any operating money at all, because it's a service organization, and service organizations were struck off the list a long time ago.

I wanted to say that I would like to recommend that we strengthen the unsexy market, the domestic market. You know, it's so exotic to go overseas, to be exported, but not everybody can go across. Not everybody is in that line, especially people such as myself. As a visual artist, many have said for many years that I'm a dinosaur. Where do I go now? I have learned to go on e-mail, and I've learned to scan in my images. I'm also going way out into technology. I am doing my own reproductions, and they're individually numbered.

I think it's an elementary question, an elementary problem. Elementary problems are not very big. Education, starting with our children, absolutely and totally must take away the stigma of going into the arts only to be confronted each and every time we go somewhere, only to have our uncles and aunts ask us when we are going to get a real job. It's not that way. We have no choice. We are artists. We have tried a lot of things in our younger years because we thought we had to make money. In the end, though, we have no choice. We have to be visual artists.

• 1105

I want to paraphrase something I read yesterday that came into my hand in my paper. I chucked it away, but I showed it to my partner first. I wish I had brought it today. Anyway, it said something to the effect that an artist's role is to give voice to the taboos, to disturb, to upset the status quo. That can only be done if we are supported. I can't pay the bills and do artwork that is totally controversial. In other words, if I don't have any support, I can't pay the bills, but I do have to pay the bills.

However, I want to say that not all is bad. I have been supported very generously in my efforts by the Manitoba Arts Council with grants. In between, when I don't have a grant, I can do zen work, little miniatures, and sell them.

So I want to say that we need this elementary work done. We need to give our children the opportunity to develop not just the mathematical side, but also the side that is the creative, because nothing really matters in the past any more; it's really the future that matters.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

Judy, can you be quick?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I did have another question. Maybe if folks are sending briefs back to the committee, it might be useful for them to address it—and Trudy touched on it briefly.

Except for the Canada Council, funding has been cut back drastically for the department, for CBC, for Telefilm, for the archives, and for the key cultural institutions in this country. I don't know what the percentage works out to. I think it's between 1% and 2% of total federal government expenditures. What is an appropriate level of investment by the federal government in arts and cultural activities for this country? How does it compare to other countries? Thirdly, knowing that there's a huge pay-off in terms of jobs and labour activity as a result of expenditures on arts and cultural activities, what's the current status of payback, looking at this in hard, crass, economic terms?

A few years back, I think we used to say the cultural sector of the economy was the fastest-growing job sector, the best job producer anywhere in the economy. Is that still the case? What relationship is there between direct investment and that kind of economic pay-off?

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much for those questions, Judy. It's a wonderful way to end, just because it's food for thought.

Again, if you would like to do so, I would encourage each and every one of you to please get a written submission in to the committee before the end of March 1999.

To finish on what Judy was saying, the Toronto Arts Council just recently came down with its report looking at the statistics of return. When you're addressing these questions, the ratio of seven to one always comes up. When people ask you questions about how to get there, though, we're never quite sure. I know McKinsey & Company did a study in the State of New York, and it was called You Gotta Have Art. It looked at the return in the State of New York from cultural activities. I think it was about seven to one. But when we look at what the return is, how do we value and rate the return?

In conclusion, I'd like to thank you all very much for coming, for taking time from your very busy schedules to come here to meet with the committee. Two hours is never enough. Like anything, though, this is not the end, this is just the beginning. We've opened a dialogue, and there's always a follow-up—and please do follow up.

Again, on behalf of my colleagues here, thank you for coming. And thank you to the local member for coming in to join our committee today as well. We look forward to your further submissions, and we look forward to your comments on our report.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): The meeting is adjourned.